The paper is devoted to the analysis of denotative similarities and differences of multivalent verbs in genetically and typologically diverse languages: Russian, English and Tatar. Productive models of metaphorical and metonymic transfer in the sphere of physical predicates are analyzed through semantic typology and cognitive linguistics. Besides, general and unique models for a particular language are defined. The most productive metaphorical models include “physical process → physical action”, “physical process → existential sphere” having general character and “physical process → social sphere”, “physical process → physiological sphere”, etc. presented in a certain language. The productive metonymic models include such models as “physical process → physical action”, “physical process → physiological sphere”, etc. It is clear that metaphorical transfers form the basis for secondary meaning of a bigger number of analyzed verbal predicates irrespective of the fact whether these models are general or ethnospecific. General models of semantic derivation in the sphere of physical verbal predicates demonstrate parallel development of similar or close derivative meanings of these units, which may be explained by the unity of cognitive mechanisms of association. Besides, secondary meanings of analyzed lexemes reflect the principle of anthropocentrism since they point to denotative spheres corresponding to different types of human activity. The study is relevant for comparative semasiology, linguistics of universals, semantic typology, theory of translation and other areas of modern linguistics. The purpose of the study is to conduct a comparative analysis of semantic derivation models in relation to physical predicates within typologically different languages.
Keywords: Metaphormetonymytypologically different languagesverbal predicatessemantic universalsanthropocentrism
Modern linguistics is characterized by an increased interest in the study of denotative dynamics of a language, which corresponds to such fundamental principle of anthropocentric paradigm as semantic centrism. At the same time scientists primarily draw their attention to the analysis of dependence of denotative transformations on a number of interrelated internal and external factors, which can unequally appear in certain languages during different periods of their development. The internal factors include the tendency to save linguistic efforts, which causes the possibility of using ready forms to express new cogitative content. Non-linguistic factors mainly include conditionality of the process and the result of semantic development of a word under sociocultural, psychological, pragmatic and other communication conditions, which predetermine the change of communicative needs of a speaker thus changing the meaning of linguistic units. At present the denotative dynamics of a word is studied in terms of several approaches: 1) system approach that identifies regular models of semantic derivation in synchrony/diachrony with subsequent creation of their catalog (Zaliznyak, 2013; Blank, 2000; Goddard, 1998; Koch, 2001; Traugott & Dasher, 2002; Vanhove, 2008a); 2) functional approach focused on conditionality of semantic development of a word by changing the communication needs, in other words – discursive characteristics of communication process (Chudinov, 2003); 3) cognitive approach that analyzes regularities of new meanings in terms of prototypical situation connecting lexical-semantic options of a linguistic unit in a whole; conditionality of semantic changes by mental processes, in particular by the association mechanisms (Boldyrev, 2016; Kustova, 2000; Haser, 2000; Vanhove, 2008b, etc.); 4) pragmatic approach considering the attitude of a speaker/listener to process and result of secondary nomination (Peregrin, 2003), etc. At the same time many issues concerning definition and complex description of the final set of semantic derivation models in a particular language/languages, their interrelation, efficiency rate in synchrony/diachrony, general/unique character, etc. are insufficiently studied.
It seems quite interesting and perspective to study the semantic derivation using the material of genetically and typologically different languages since the results of such analysis allow revealing general and ethnospecific parameters of semantic derivation and showing its conditionality caused by cognitive, pragmatic, linguocultural and other factors, including specifics of background knowledge behind semantic transition models and the worldview of native speakers, etc. (Kiseleva & Todosienko, 2019). Besides, such study is aimed at system introduction of productive models of secondary meaning in terms of adequate transmission of semantics of a multivalent word throughout cross-cultural communication and translation practice.
The study is focused on polysemic physical predicates in unrelated multi-structural languages (Russian, English and Tatar), while our attention is mainly paid to productive models of semantic derivation demonstrating regularities of new meanings. The relevance of the study is caused by certain factors: 1) the considered predicates are characterized by complex network system of meanings, which has regular character in the above languages; 2) centuries-old socio-political, economic and other relations between the representatives of Russian and English linguistic cultures on the one hand, and Russian and Tatar – on the other hand, cause intensive language contacts resulting to borrowing and calquing, including their semantic aspect. In this regard the study of the origin of new meanings of verbs of one semantic group within contacting languages, including cases of parallel development of similar secondary meaning, seems quite interesting.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study is to conduct a comparative analysis of semantic derivation models in relation to physical predicates within typologically different languages (Russian, English, Tatar) in terms of their general/unique nature, to define the degree of their regularity in either language. Since the indirect nomination is the most productive type of semantic derivation we will mainly concentrate on models of metaphorical and metonymic transfer.
The models of semantic derivation are defined and systematized through physical verbal predicates recorded in the
The system nature of semantic derivation models in typologically different languages can be exemplified by physical verbs with the meaning of frying and fermentation/souring. Lack of identical secondary meanings simultaneously present in three languages is typical for these verbs; however we may note similar figurative meaning of these predicates in two languages.
I. General metaphorical models:
1. “Physical process → physiological sphere”. Thus, the Russian verb
2. “Physical process → existential sphere”. During their transfer to this sphere the Russian verbs
II. Unique metaphorical models:
1. “Physical process → physical action”. This model is presented in the Russian language by a verb
2. “Physical process → physiological sphere”: the Tatar verb
3. “Physical process → social sphere”. The Tatar verb
III. General metonymic models:
1. “Physical process → physiological sphere”. This model is implemented through some verbs of the analyzed languages: Russian
IV. Unique metonymic models:
1. “Physical process → physical action”. According to this model some verbs develops the following figurative meaning: Russian
2. “Physical process → physiological sphere”. This model is represented in Tatar language by a predicate
The analysis of secondary meanings of verbs relating to the semantic group “fermentation/souring” is equally interesting.
I. General metaphorical models
1. “Physical process → emotional sphere”. The Russian verb
II. Unique metaphorical models
1. “Physical process → social sphere”. The Russian verbs
2. “Physical process → physiological sphere”. In Russian language some verbs develop unique figurative meaning connected with this sphere:
3. “Physical process → emotional sphere”. The English verb
III. Unique metonymic models
1. “Physical process → physical action”. Unique metonymic meaning is typical for Tatar verb
The results of the study demonstrate that the branched semantic structure is typical for Russian physical verbs, whereas their English and Tatar analogs are characterized by less complex system of secondary meaning, which often “incorporate” several lexical-semantic variations typical for Russian equivalents. It is also found that general and unique cognitive models defining the development of polysemanticism of physical verbs in the analyzed languages often coincide, for example, the models “physical process → emotional sphere”, ‘physical process → physical impact”, etc. Moreover, the same models can be both metaphorical and metonymic, which is reasonable since these cognitive mechanisms actively interact during semantic dynamics of a word. These models include “physical process → physiological sphere”, “physical process → physical action”, etc. Another interesting fact is that within all analyzed languages the list of metaphorical transfer models is slightly wider than the set of metonymic models. Besides, metaphorical transfers are key for secondary meaning of a bigger number of the analyzed verbal predicates irrespective of the fact whether these models are general or unique. The universal models of semantic derivation within the analyzed languages demonstrate parallel development of identical or close derivative meaning. It is fair to say that the denotative dynamics of a word is characterized by the contradictory nature: on the one hand, there is regularity and reproducibility of semantic derivation models in the system of a particular language/languages; on the other hand, some relations of word meanings can be illogical, accidental since they reflect not only rational, but also emotional and sensual nature of associative similarities. The derivative meaning models of physical verbs reflect the principle of anthropocentrism since they point to denotative spheres corresponding to different types of human activity (social, physical, etc.).
- Blank, A. (2000). Polysemy in the lexicon. Meaning Change – Meaning Variation. Workshop Held at Konstanz, Feb. 1999. Konstanz.
- Boldyrev, N. N. (2016). Cognitive schemes of language interpretation. Questions of cognitive linguistics, 4, 10–20.
- Chudinov, A. P. (2003). Metaphorical mosaic in modern political communication. Ekaterinburg: Ural State Pedagogical University.
- Goddard, C. (1998). Semantic Analysis: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Haser, V. (2000). Metaphor in semantic change. Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads. A Cognitive Perspective. Berlin; New York.
- Kiseleva, L. A., & Todosienko, Z. V. (2019). Cognitive bases of semantic derivation in multi-structural languages. Questions of cognitive linguistics, 1, 21–29.
- Koch, P. (2001). Lexical typology from a cognitive and linguistic point of view. Language Typology and Language Universals. An International Handbook, 2, 1143–1175.
- Kustova, G. I. (2000). Cognitive models in semantic derivation and the system of derived meaning. Questions of linguistics, 4, 85–109.
- Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
- Peregrin, J. (2003). Meaning: The Dynamic Turn. Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface. London: Elsevier.
- Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B. (2002). Regularities in Semantic Change. Cambridge University Press.
- Vanhove, M. (2008a). From Polysemy to Semantic Shange. Towards a Typology of Lexical Semantic Associations. Studies in Language Companion series, 106.
- Vanhove, M. (2008b). Semantic associations between sensory modalities, prehension and mental perception. From Polysemy to Semantic change. Towards a Typology of Lexical Semantic Associations. Studies in Language Companion series, 106, 341–370.
- Vasilyev, L. M. (2009). System Semantic Dictionary of the Russian Language. Predicate vocabulary, iss. 9. Predicates of activity and procedural predicates. Ufa: BSU publishing house.
- Zaliznyak A. A. (2013). Semantic transition as a typology object. Questions of linguistics, 2, 32–51.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
About this article
21 January 2020
Print ISBN (optional)
Sociolinguistics, linguistics, semantics, discourse analysis, science, technology, society
Cite this article as:
Kiseleva*, L., Ibragimova, V., Todosienko, Z., Salnikova, V., & Akhmatyanova, Z. (2020). Semantic Parallels And Contrasts In The Vocabulary Of Unrelated Languages. In D. Karim-Sultanovich Bataev, S. Aidievich Gapurov, A. Dogievich Osmaev, V. Khumaidovich Akaev, L. Musaevna Idigova, M. Rukmanovich Ovhadov, A. Ruslanovich Salgiriev, & M. Muslamovna Betilmerzaeva (Eds.), Social and Cultural Transformations in the Context of Modern Globalism, vol 76. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences (pp. 1674-1679). Future Academy. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2019.12.04.227